It is really difficult to measure the scientific productivity of scientists by a few criterion. I believe that all criteria including, number of citations, impact factors, number of patents, scientific discoveries, etc. should be taken into account and we need a multi-criteria approach. The question is what weight should be assigned to each single criteria?.

The attached links provide background information about measuring scientific productivity.

http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/jan252005/223.pdf

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/13047/title/Evaluation-of-Scientific-Productivity/

How many numbers got discoveries, inventions and/or rationalizations. Therefore, I believe it is not rational to base the assessment of scientific productivity on the amount of discoveries, inventions and/or rationalizations. These discoveries can be asset or value over the assessment, but not a part of it.

Dear @Vladimir, I think that assessment of scientific productivity should include both discoveries, inventions and rationalizations as well as publication metrics! 

I would not give the precedence to any of mentioned, but to all criteria. It is multi-criteria approach to scientific metrics with weighting factors for each contribution.

It is really difficult to measure the scientific productivity of scientists by a few criterion. I believe that all criteria including, number of citations, impact factors, number of patents, scientific discoveries, etc. should be taken into account and we need a multi-criteria approach. The question is what weight should be assigned to each single criteria?.

The attached links provide background information about measuring scientific productivity.

http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/jan252005/223.pdf

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/13047/title/Evaluation-of-Scientific-Productivity/

Hello friends 

I agree with Mr. Behrouz Ahmadi-Nedushan it hard to measure that, however Number of publications, citation indexes reflect the scientific productivity of scientists .

So it is related .

Regards,

Hi

What I think citation , impact factor , publications and indexes also important  it show you how useful your research .

as you know her in RG they measure it by how many downloads and citation of ur publications and who are they what is their score the higher score the more you get score .

“innovations in high technology and introducing “more competition” in and between the universities, by “high profile education” in the universities (connecting finances to accomplishments), to separating elite universities and departments from the “mass university,” etc. –aimed at producing services cheaper and faster under the pressure of money.

These parameters evolved as research and invention as business seeding are considered competitive and to increase their profitability through Scientific Knowledge as a means of capital

Science and Education in Capitalism- http://www.ruthlesscriticism.com/science&education.htm

Dear All,

RG participants discussed often in many threads on the task of a scientist or researcher as a brain worker. It has been crystallised in these discussions that essence and task of scientists are to serve the human welfare as well as to work for the progression and the really equal human rights and democracy. If scientific productivity, inventions and discoveries serve these objectives the role of science is merited and useful. The same thing can be written on the publications. If a publication is but a decoration, an instrument of vanity and serves individual interests, it cannot be a suitable measure of scientific activity.

I agree with András! Quality before quantity! Publish few but  innovative works: less job for reviewers, lower rejection rates, less opportunity for appearance of weak or diluted journals calling them "scholastic".  Science-metrics are simply the extension (some may say the "correction" or weighing) of the "publish or perish" movement from the last century.

Note on the scientific discoveries and their usefulness for mankind

Example: nuclear reaction -> nuclear weapon, nuclear power plants and radiation therapy.

Unlikely to Ernest Rutherford and his contemporaries could assess the usefulness of the discovery of nuclear reaction.

It should be mentioned that a unified approach for evaluation of scientific production is not justified. In the areas which are related with applications the criteria should be different compared with areas which are called basic sciences. Another observation: the use of metrics which can be easily manipulated will bring big disadvantages to honest scientists with respect to those who don’t have much scrupulous.

An interesting article in Nature on measuring scientific productivity.

In the March 25 , 2010 edition of Nature, Julia Lane, Program Director of the Science of Science and Innovation Policy Program at the National Science Foundation, wrote an interesting opinion piece about the assessment of scientific performance. She argues that the current systems of measurement are inadequate, as they have several inherent problems and do not capture the full spectrum of scientific activities. Good scientific metrics are difficult, but without them we risk making the wrong decisions about funding and academic positions.

The article emphasizes that is not enough to think about how to best collect and report scientific output, but that it is equally important to understand what these data mean and how to use them, and this may differ from field to field. Knowledge creation is complex and measuring this can not be reduced to counting scientific papers and the number of times they are cited. Social scientists and economists should be involved in this step. Julia Lane suggests an international platform supported by funding agencies in which ideas and potential solutions for science metrics can be discussed (see the pdf link for more details)

http://blogs.plos.org/mfenner/2010/03/29/lets_make_science_metrics_more_scientific/

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7288/full/464488a.html

Yes, why not? Indices, publications and other related to public relations, can be manipulated, while an invention will always be a difficult task!

The statistical analysis of data on scientific and technological literature, and constitutes a method for measuring the production and dissemination of knowledge. Indeed, bibliometrics is a tool by which the state of S&T can be observed through the overall production of scientific literature to situate a country in relation to the world, an institution in relation to a country, and even individual scientists in relation to their own communities, and is used in research performance evaluation by governments, policymakers, research directors and administrators, information specialists, librarians, and researchers themselves. However, it is worth noting that using bibliometric analysis alone cannot justify a decision or replace evaluations by experts. Bibliometric indicators are practical tools that must be used with other indicators and peer judgements for better decision making.

Assessment of the scientific productivity in the African Union, 2005-2010, African Observatory of Science, Technology and Innovation

Measuring your scientific productivity and impact on science?

Academics, researchers or the scientists work hard for boosting their research and disseminate it through various channels such as conference presentations and articles, technical reports or journal publications. A question can always be raised that 'how to evaluate the individual's productivity and the impact on science or scientific community'. Whether this should relate with the number of articles he published or the quality of these articles?

http://drprashantkumar.blogspot.in/2010/07/measuring-your-scientific-productivity.html

Dear @Krishnan, I have read a fine article/ blog by Dr Kumar. He did a good job. I do personally like his observation on citations : " The citation can be directly related with the quality of the research presented in an article. However, there are contrasting thoughts about this. For example, in some cases you may find that despite having excellent science in an article it does not get citations. There could be several reasons for this, such as the novelty of research and its real-world application, dissemination media (i.e. the quality, popularity and the way of an journal to promote research), the name (and fame) of an individual scientists in a particular research area, selection of an appropriate journal for publication and the way of presenting the research in the article in a fresh, interesting and attracting manner, etc. "

@ Ljubomir

With reference to citations, i agree with you, however for this question -

I limit my alignment with the attached reference article, within the boundary of Measurement ie., ARTICLE PUBLICATIONS as one of a measure on scientific productivity.

Research paper published in reputed journals (ISI indexed ..) more or less deals with discoveries and rationalizations, and in some cases with inventions, therefore using such research paper as an indicator of research productivity is not depreciated.

Like in invention there is research group leader, there is main author in research paper production.

Dear @Faheem

To make sure of the absurdity of the current quantitative indicators of scientific productivity, just look at the RG-page of inventor of World Wide Web (Tim Berners-Lee).

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tim_Berners-Lee

I quite agree with the proposition on the assessment of scientific productivity. However, such an assessment should involve something more complex. For my part, it is a systematic project to assess scientific productivity which involves many factors.

The scientific productivity should not be assessed by only the numbers of discoveries, inventions and rationalizations, but mainly by the quality of such intellectual properties, the utility for society, profit to people, respecting the nature

. 

Dear @César

About the scientific discoveries and their usefulness for mankind

Example: nuclear reaction -> nuclear weapon, nuclear power plants and radiation therapy.

Unlikely to Ernest Rutherford and his contemporaries could assess the usefulness of the discovery of nuclear reaction.

Nuclear energy is dangerous to mankind, but radiation therapy is useful in some cases. But the nations are walking to clean energy, example is the nuclear disaster in Fukushima, Japan, and now there´re many wind turbines offshore there, respecting the environment.

Dear @César

The consequences of the application of scientific results is important topic.

But here we do not discuss it.

Dear Vladimir,

Dear All,

Your characterisation of scientific performance as discovery, invention and rationalisation seem to be logical and attractive. However, I would suggest a simpler and more universal unit: the idea, possibly independent idea. The idea may be a little and a great one. A wholly original, partly original or original in a little detail. Unfortunately, I have read too many papers which lack fully even a trace of an idea. Certainly, it is difficult to measure and classify ideas.

Scientific productivity comes from discoveries , inventions and rationalizations but these things should be approved by quality publications and patents. Finally it should reach the society where it achieves the real value .

I also think both are important: Finding and publishing.

According to famous Michael Faraday quote - The secret is comprised in three words — Work, finish, publish. His well-known advice to the young William Crookes, who had asked him the secret of his success as a scientific investigator

I agree with the proposition of Mahmoud Omid.

Would it therefore be appropriate to operationalize scientific productivity not only through the amount of published papers, archival conference proceedings, chapters in books etc. but also through supervisors evaluation of an employee's task performance ("This subordinate adequately completes assigned duties.") and "creativity performance" ("This subordinate often has new and innovative ideas")?

It is not easy for every researcher to design and experiment a prototype of his idea or modeling into an accepted scientific invention or patent; the reasons are connected with the available lab. tools, technologies, competencies, organizational and finantial  frameworks, politics.... As mentioned by @Andras the idea is the core of the invention or discovery. So how to measure it and how to protect it from cheating???

Performance Assessments can be carried out using the facilitating tool of Heron's.

Scientific Productivity has areas which are difficult to be quantified, hence a facilitating tool is required to map the MILESTONES or Project Phases.

Heron's model has two basic categories or styles – "authoritative" and "facilitative". Those two categories further breakdown into a total six categories to describe how people intervene when helping. There are some technical words used to describe the categories. Don't be put off by them – they are necessary to describe this model and we define them fully below.

Authoritative (for Self Evaluation)

• Prescriptive
• Informative
• Confronting

Facilitative (for peer and Expert review and assistance)

• Cathartic
• Catalytic
• Supportive

http://www.mindtools.com/CommSkll/HeronsCategories.htm

No. Any system that relies on counts can be gamed. Unfortunately, objective metrics for merit do not exist. Amounts of discoveries might be a metric, but how do you know it is a discovery. Do you remember cold fusion?

Amounts of discoveries and the like might have some probative value. The researcher with 10 publications might be more productive than a researcher with none. Even there, the probability is still less than 1.

Assessment of scientific productivity  can be based on the number of discoveries, inventions and rationalizations but as an economic realization from a Investor or Fund provider's point of view, Productive activities include “creation, recognition, and utilization of positive opportunities within the existing (or through creation of new) in such a way that involves "innovation with Utility".

Paweł Kawalec, Profiting from Innovation. Methodological Ramifications of Decision Factors.

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/258833893_Profiting_from_Innovation._Methodological_Ramifications_of_Decision_Factors._Book_chapter/file/e0b495290ec218c3eb.pdf

Chapter Profiting from Innovation. Methodological Ramifications of D...

How about people who are asked or obliged by any mean to no scientific productivity or to stop or block their productivity? How should be assessed?? Are there someones who dread their productivity and consequently their audience ?? or something else. Anyway no one (or no part) could gain something by this mean. Researchers who are blocked from producing knowledge, their tutors or institutions, their country and their worldwide scientific communauty are loosing time, skills and progress, may be only few lobbyists who perhaps want to save some interests??? and what kind of interests ?? are the winners....

Bravo dear @Fairouz for an excellent remarks!

Dear @Fairouz

Your tragic questions cause sympathy. Although they do not answer the basic question of our discussion.

Dear @Vladimir. Yes it should be. But where you present them? naturally we publish them as papers, we patent them, etc So what you called "secondary importance" is not secondary. The overall performance is a package so it can include discoveries, inventions, patents, publications, citations, finished projects, conference attendance, ...

To promote widespread dissemination of new knowledge by encouraging (or requiring) rights holders to place their inventions and ideas on the market. Information is a form of public good in that it is inherently non-rival and, moreover, developers may find it difficult to exclude others from using it. In economic terms it is socially efficient to provide wide access to new technologies and products, once they are developed, at marginal production costs. An overly protective system of IPRS could limit the social gains from invention by reducing incentives to disseminate its fruits. However, an excessively weak system could reduce innovation by failing to provide an adequate return on investment.

http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CD8QFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.colorado.edu%2Feconomics%2Fmcguire%2Fworkingpapers%2Fcwrurev.doc&ei=EjCJVOXvI4r1UpSRgyA&usg=AFQjCNEuj7nCWrumkEZVOWO7mdCEbjTB0g&cad=rja

Scientific discovery is primary. However, in my opinion, assessment should be balanced and include both inventions/discoveries and publications based on them. It is another matter if a publication is not substantiated in practice, i.e., there is a new paper but no new discovery. But if there is a discovery -- however small -- why not put it in print and disseminate? Assessment that includes publications is a way to nudge researchers in this direction. 

For academic entities that receive government research funds, such as universities, publishing and disseminating their new discoveries might as well be a requirement for funding. Among others, this is a way to encourage the researchers to do high quality cutting edge research which -- through publications --would increase the prestige of their alma mater/institution among the peers. I fully agree that in science the discovery or invention should be primary but in scientific research nowadays there are numerous other considerations besides the scientific discovery per se.  

My response concerns a situation where there is a bona fide discovery but no publication about it.

The situation with citations indices as a measure of productivity is tricky. If I have to choose an index, I should say that Google Scholar is more inclusive as it does not discriminate between the publication venue unlike the WoS. After all, a very important publication can appear in an open source journal or even repository (Think about Grigorii Perelman). 

I feel that a productive research should have contribution(s) to solve the real world problem(s) or guide the world to a better direction that benefits a lot people. Otherwise, the researches are locked in an ivory tower without be used in the real world.

No, No, No,

Dr. Antonakis is Professor of Organizational Behavior on the Faculty of Business and Economics at the University of Lausanne and Editor-in-Chief of The Leadership Quarterly. The five diseases he discovered not only plague the production of useful research but infect people with doubt about the accuracy, and even the truth, of scientific discovery...

There are many new tools in the scholarly publishing environment to help researchers to distinguish quality research. An example is the plethora of article recommendation tools now available on the market, including Mendeley Suggest, which was launched last year and uses large volumes of anonymised readership information to create personalised article suggestions. We're in the age of information and communication, and the way research has changed reflects broader trends across society in this respect...

https://www.elsevier.com/connect/5-diseases-ailing-research-and-how-to-cure-them